Menu

Daily Archives: February 11, 2013

American Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan, reported to be in the running to replace Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Roman Catholic Church, is usually described as a “conservative” because he has strongly criticized President Obama’s attacks on religious liberty and federal intrusions into church affairs. But Dolan is also the leader of the campaign to promote Marxist Dorothy Day for Sainthood.

One report asks, “Could Timothy Dolan Become The First American Pope?” Dolan, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB,) is considered the voice of U.S. Catholicism.

But Carol Byrne, author of The Catholic Worker Movement (1933-1980): A Critical Analysis, says Dolan manipulated a vote by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops last November to move forward with the canonization of Dorothy Day, even though The New York Times itself noted that some of the Bishops said “she had an abortion as a young woman and at one point flirted with joining the Communist Party.”

The Times story was headlined, “In Hero of the Catholic Left, a Conservative Cardinal Sees a Saint.” Day, a major figure in the “Catholic Worker” movement, died in 1980.

In a letter obtained by this journalist, Virginia State Senator Richard H. “Dick” Black was so disgusted by the push for sainthood for Dorothy Day that he told the Pope on January 7, 2013, that he was “appalled” that “a woman of such loathsome character” would be considered for sainthood.

Black, a retired Marine Corps colonel, noted that “Vatican archives are filled with reports of Christians martyred under the regimes that Dorothy Day supported. I am revolted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ support for the canonization of a woman whose views supported the violent extermination of Christians throughout the world. I ask that these matters be carefully weighed so that the Holy See will not be inadvertently misled when considering the canonization of Dorothy Day.”

As a Marine pilot, Black fought the communists. He flew 269 combat missions in Vietnam and was wounded during fierce ground fighting with the 1st Marine Regiment.

“I am particularly concerned about her support for Ho Chi Minh,” Black said in his letter. He said that he had recently hosted a group of 12 Vietnamese men, each of whom served as senior officials in the Free Republic of Vietnam during the time when the North Vietnamese Communists overwhelmed Saigon in 1975. “Six of them were imprisoned in concentration camps no less severe than those of the Nazis in Germany,” he explained.

Regarding Dorothy Day’s “flirtation” with the Communist Party, as the Times put it, Carol Byrne told this journalist, “…I have provided proof, drawn from archival evidence and other authentic sources, that even after her conversion to Catholicism, Day became a member of several socialist organizations and was actively involved in political groups (including trade unions) whose founders and leaders were predominantly Communist Party members. She also supported the causes of individual Communists who were in the pay of the Soviet Union.”

Byrne went on, “This must be considered against the background of successive Popes who condemned communism as ‘intrinsically evil.’ They forbade Catholics from supporting Communists, and in July 1949 Pope Pius XII issued a decree of excommunication against anyone who collaborated with Communists or joined their associations. There is evidence to show that Day simply shrugged off the papal ban: she did not see communism as a real problem, or experience any moral quandary for a Catholic working in coalition with such groups professedly dedicated to ‘Justice and Peace.’”

State Senator Black said he was extremely concerned that, for almost 50 years, Day was the editor of a pro-communist newspaper, the Catholic Worker. He noted that the 58l-page FBI file on Day “contains a recommendation that Dorothy Day be considered for custodial detention in the event of a national emergency.”

His letter to the Pope went on to say that he was particularly concerned about Day’s “favorable writings regarding Lenin, Castro, Mao, and Ho Chi Minh. As you well know, each of the above dictators ordered the execution of Catholic priests among the millions of other Christians murdered by these regimes.”

Carol Byrne confirmed that Day “supported the policies of hostile foreign powers operating from Moscow, Havana, Peking and Hanoi against her own country, the USA. She also wrote favorably about such socialist dictators as Lenin, Castro, Mao and Ho Chi Minh, even though they had all violently persecuted the Church in their respective countries. Nor could she in principle bring herself to condemn the social and economic ideals of Marxism.”

Nevertheless, The New York Times reported, “Cardinal Dolan has embraced her cause with striking zeal: speaking on the anniversaries of her birth and death, distributing Dorothy Day prayer cards to parishes and even buying roughly 100 copies of her biography to give out last year as Christmas gifts to civic officials including Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.”

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].

The Obama Administration bullied its way into your doctor’s office, now it is bullying its way inside your home. Claiming a need for “healthy housing,” new 2013 policies enacted by the Obama administration give the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Housing and Urban Development Agency (HUD) the right to decide the condition of your home. While Obamacare is not about quality health care, the government’s new housing strategy appears to be more about home invasion than home health.

On February 4, 2013, the Obama government issued a press release on how it plans to gain access into your home. What follows is an edited snapshot of the government’s planned intrusions onto and into your private property:

FEDERAL AGENCIES WORKING TO MAKE HOMES HEALTHIERImproving housing quality can dramatically affect the health of residents

WASHINGTON-Several federal agencies today unveiled Advancing Healthy Housing – A Strategy for Action. White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair Nancy Sutley, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Shaun Donovan, Surgeon General Regina Benjamin, M.D., and Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman discussed the new plan during an event at the National Building Museum this morning… The Strategy for Action encourages federal agencies to take preemptive actions that will help reduce the number of American homes with health and safety hazards…. Currently, millions of U.S. homes have moderate to severe physical housing problems, including dilapidated structure; roofing problems; heating, plumbing, and electrical deficiencies; water leaks and intrusion; pests; damaged paint; and high radon gas levels… The Strategy for Action unifies, for the first time, federal action to advance healthy housing, demonstrating the connection between housing conditions and residents’ health… It is clear that unhealthy and unsafe housing has an impact on the health of millions of people in the United States,” said HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan… “Today’s announcement will help the federal government unify action to controlling and preventing major housing-related exposures and hazards.” (Emphasis added.)

The Obama administration through the EPA, HUD and DOE (Department of Energy) wants unprecedented control over your home. In addition to privacy issues, homeowners can expect to fork over hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to be in compliance or face stiff fines. Additional costs will be added to how new homes are built, whereas the sales of older homes can be stopped in their tracks until they meet stringent government codes. The government portends to act in your best interest. Note words, such as controlling, in the press release that reveal real intent:

1.) The Strategy for Action encourages federal agencies to take preemptive actions

2.) Today’s announcement will help the federal government unify action to controlling and preventing major housing-related exposures and hazards.”

3.) The Strategy for Action unifies, for the first time, federal action to advance healthy housing, demonstrating the connection between housing conditions and residents’ health.

Like Obamacare, this “action” being imposed by the government is touted as being “for your own good,” whether you like it or not. The following statement by U.S. Deputy Secretary of Energy Daniel Poneman obtusely explains the push for so-called smart meters; meters that are reportedly designed to enable external control of home thermostats by government authorities: “Energy efficiency and healthy homes are inextricably linked. We cannot, in good conscience, pursue one in the absence of the other.”

Selling, renovating or simply upgrading items such as air conditioning, electrical or water heaters can cost additional thousands. Inspectors will have greater access into your home through new and unwieldy code requirements. Contractors’ open work permits flag your home as a target. The new federal EPA, HUD and DOE home regulations filter down to local inspectors who are required by law to impose them or fail the home inspection. Unnecessary and unreasonable code can be imposed on homeowners who find they “can’t fight code.” There is virtually no appeal.

The government’s goal to invade personal privacy and control the lives of all Americans was exposed when Congresswoman Maxine Waters, a Socialist Democrat from California, recently bragged on TV One’s Washington Watch:

“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life. That’s going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that.” – Maxine Waters

Water’s real message is that it is the American people who are being forced to deal with it. Of utmost interest is if and how the American people will choose to do so.

For Sebastian’s analysis on the EPA and Code via Agenda 21, go to YouTube. Click here.

NOTE: OBAMA & THE UN: AGENDA 21, April 2010, reads “…the Environmental Protection Agency will have power to force many homeowners to virtually rebuild their homes to meet stringent environmental requirements before they can sell them. Living in a house that does not meet the EPA’s “green” regulations for roofing, windows, doors, insulation or heating and cooling systems will be slapped with fines. Electrical companies are now installing “smart monitoring systems” to track usage of energy by residents.” TO CONTINUE: CLICK HERE.

Sharon Sebastian (www.DarwinsRacists.com) is a columnist, commentator, author, and contributor to various forms of media including cultural and political broadcasts, print, and online websites. In addition to the heated global debate on creation vs. evolution, her second book, “Darwin’s Racists: Yesterday, Today & Tomorrow,” highlights the impact of Social Darwinism’s Marxist/Socialist underpinnings on the culture, the faith and current policy out of Washington. Critics are calling Darwin’s Racists, “Incredibly Timely” and “A Book for our Times.” Sebastian is a featured guest on broadcasts nationwide on topics ranging from politics, the economy, healthcare, culture, religion and evolution to Agenda 21’s global green movement. Sebastian’s political and cultural analyses on a wide range of national and global events are published nationally and internationally. Website: www.DarwinsRacists.com. “Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow” may be purchased at: www.DarwinsRacists.com, www.Amazon.com, www.BarnesandNoble.com and at bookstores online and worldwide.

Every week on Monday morning, the Council and invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day. This week’s question: Is there a war against males in our current culture and society?

A quick survey of advertising over the last few decades shows a clear trend toward a “women are smart, men are dumb” meme, along with a companion “kids are smart, adults are dumb” meme.

There are racial as well as “gender targeted” biases laid in with this, but for now I’ll just address the “gender targeting” portion. Oh, and we’ll acknowledge that the correct term is actually “sex” not “gender” (since gender refers to parts of speech), but culturally, as part of the social neutering process, “sex” is now a four-letter word and “gender” is proper, even if wrong.

Several years ago, the headshrinkers introduced the concept of a “feminine side” to men, which men were obliged to investigate, inspect and adopt for proper integration with the “new, improved” social order. For example, Sears, long a bastion of manliness with the best tools and best gear, and the most git-’er-done per square store, decided that there would be more money to be had pushing their “softer side.” The manlier side of Sears was acknowledged in advertizing as a sort of concession to the obligatory husbands, who were necessary to provide the kids and teens for whom Mom would shop, over on that “softer side” of the store.

Large companies — even medium companies — increasingly made efforts via HR to muzzle the men and empower the women, creating an increasingly hostile-but-passive-aggressive environment for men. The HR briefings were rich with admonitions to the men that “thou shalt behave toward women,” while such corresponding admonitions to the women were pretty thin on the ground.

Somewhere, in an obscure lab or study group, this notion that manliness was somehow “uncivilized” and very cave-man was derived, along with the observation that rambunctious boys with short attention spans (now called “ADD”) had this tendency to grow up into men with unfortunately manly attributes, for which (happily) specific “medication” has now been brought to bear, bringing hope to the world that this unfortunate “manliness” thing that so plagues mankind can be eradicated.

There’s plenty of room for speculation on the motives for this set of pet theories that manliness = uncivilized and that feminine = civilized, and it should be noted that in countries and cultures where there is dynamic growth and aggressive spreading of cultural customs and influence, manliness is much more prevalent and even preferred as the manifestation of manhood.

It would be a real shame if our society were overrun by a competing — and more manly — culture simply because we bred the men — the manly men — out of ours.

Bookworm Room: There is absolutely a war against males in our current culture. One sees it most clearly in schools. Little boys are barred from competition, play fighting, rough playing, and war games — or, in other words, they are expected to sit around the playground like little girls and talk about their feelings. When they get to college, boys and girls are told that boys are rapists and predators. Boys’ wonderful qualities — bravery, loyalty, inquisitiveness, the willingness to fight, physically if necessary, for a cause — are all painted as negatives that lead to war.

Outside of school, the Left plays lip service to supporting our troops, but tries very hard to feminize them. The latest effort is to bring women to the front line, something that will irreparably change that front line culture.

There’s also a lot of straight-out hostility to boys. It’s been twelve years, but I still can’t get over the t-shirt, obviously from a fashionable outlet, that I saw an elementary school age girl wearing. It said “Boys have feelings too. Who cares?” As the mother of a darling little boy, I cared a great deal. And can you imagine if the word “boys” had been removed and something like “girls” or “blacks” or “gays” or “Asians” had been written there instead? You can just hear the outrage. But boys? Nope.

JoshuaPundit: American culture was been oriented against traditional male attributes and against men in general since the boomers began to take over the culture in the 1970′s. The ironic part was that the social damage inflicted by progressives in what was sold as a war on male patriarchy was actually a war on women.

I recall a speech President Obama gave during the last presidential campaign with star prevaricator Sandra Fluke as his warm up act, talking about how the Republicans ‘want to take women back to the 1950′s.’ Obviously, a number of young single women who weren’t around then were willing to buy that horse manure, but the fact is that with some obvious exceptions, most women were happier in the 1950′s than they are today. They (and their children) were less likely to be living in poverty, more likely to be married, had a far easier time finding suitable mates, were far less likely to be the victim of a sexual assault and far less likely to be divorced.

All one needs to do is look at what’s being held up as male role models in the culture today in Hollywood as opposed to even twenty or thirty years ago.

President Clinton is another good example of how far this has progressed. In the 1950′s, someone with his attributes, his past and his record of being a serial sexual predator would not even have been electable. Even as late as the 1970′s he would have been impeached and shunned by decent society. Nowadays, he’s considered a role model and a superb president.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Pipelines used to be things that were just built without blinking. It is said that there are enough pipelines now in the US to encircle the Earth 25 times with enough left over to also tie a bow around it. Today, getting a pipeline built is not so easy – there are too many environmental concerns and the industry has become highly polarized. But here’s one thing that could bring everyone together: pipeline safety technology. And it’s something we all want, especially for those who live along the thousands of miles of aging pipeline routes that carry hazardous liquids.

Spawned by research that started in space, remote-sensing technology designed to detect dangerous leaks in pipelines has the potential to provide the neutral ground for decisions to be made and consensus to be formed. The clincher: This technology is not only affordable -it saves money and could eventually save the industry.

In an exclusive interview with Oilprice.com, Adrian Banica, founder and CEO of Synodon – the forerunner in leak detection systems – discusses:

• How a technology that started in space has the potential to quell intensifying protests

• Why Keystone XL will eventually be a reality – sooner rather than later

• How remote sensing technology can fingerprint pipeline leaks

• How remote sensing technology can find the little leaks before they become big leaks—at no extra cost

• Why North America’s new pipelines aren’t the problem and why the focus should be on aging pipelines that are going to experience a lot more leaks

• How this technology could bring the industry and environmentalists together

• How external leak detection can save lives in high-risk areas

Interview with James Stafford of Oilprice.com

James Stafford: Now that pipelines are the hottest topic on the oil and gas scene and have found themselves on the frontline of conflict between environmentalists and the industry, high-tech leak detection systems such as Synodon’s remote sensing technology seem to be offering a way out of the chaos. Can you put this into perspective for us?

Adrian Banica: Yes. In North America alone, there are upwards of a million kilometers of transmission pipelines – and this does not even count the gathering and distribution pipelines. What we offer is attractive to both sides in this conflict: environmentalists want it and the industry can afford it.

Methods for inspecting pipelines have existed for many decades. What we’re providing is a better way of doing it. Synodon’s technology offers an accurate and precise method of oil and gas leak detection. This technology detects small leaks before they become big leaks.

James Stafford: In layman’s terms, how does it work?

Adrian Banica: It is relatively simple. Synodon has developed a remote sensing technology that can measure very small ground level concentrations of escaped gas from an aircraft flying overhead. This “realSens” technology is mounted on a helicopter and piloted by GPS over a pipeline.

Think of this gas sensor as a big infrared camera that is particularly adept at detecting very, very small color changes in the infrared spectrum. The color changes that we detect are caused by various gasses that the instrument looks at. Every gas in nature absorbs and colors the infrared light that passes through it in a very specific way. From the shade of the color, we can also infer how much methane or ethane we can see with our instruments. In effect, it’s like a color fingerprint of the gas.

James Stafford: Can you give us a sense of how this technology has evolved into what it is today—essentially the potential tool for bringing environmentalists and industry leaders together over the pipeline issue?

Adrian Banica: Yes. It started in space. Back in the 1990s, I was aware of technology being developed for various space programs, including Canada’s and NASA’s. I was looking for technologies that could solve oil and gas problems, but that were also novel, unique. That is how the whole idea started: It was matching a technology that the Canadian Space Agency funded to develop an instrument that measured carbon monoxide and methane from orbit.

So the idea then was if one can detect methane from space, why couldn’t we adapt that technology to detect methane by flying it on a plane? In 2000, I founded Synodon in order to monetize and commercialize this.

James Stafford: How effective are automated leak detection systems?

Adrian Banica: They are typically only able to detect high level leaks above 1% of the pipeline flow. They measure the volume of the product that passes a sensor (flow measurements) and the pressure in the pipeline–if there is a leak the pressure will be lower downstream from it, among other things. However, as a recent report from the Department of Transportation in the US points out, these systems only detect a leak at best about 40% of the time, irrespective of how big a leak is.

It is also important to differentiate between catastrophic leaks and small leaks. For catastrophic leaks, most pipelines use these flow meters which operate 24/7. But smaller leaks can only be detected by performing an above-ground survey either by foot patrol, vehicle or aircraft. The predominant technologies used would be sampling gas sensors, thermal cameras, laser detection or our remote sensing system.

James Stafford: So this remote sensing technology uses a sort of “fingerprinting” to detect leaks, but we understand that it has much more to offer the industry …

Adrian Banica: Yes. The core offering is the technology we developed for natural gas and liquid hydrocarbon leak detection, but there is a basket of services designed to reduce the overall costs for our clients. During our leak detection surveys, we collect a lot of different types of data such as visual images, thermal images and very, very accurate GPS information. We’ve repackaged all those data sets into new value-added products. We can provide these extra services without incurring additional costs.

For instance, we could offer some of those services for new construction, in which case it would speed up the process of getting all the information required for the necessary regulatory filings.

The most important thing, as I mentioned earlier, is trying to find small leaks before they become large leaks. All our services and all the data we provide are geared towards preventative maintenance. We sought to add services beyond leak protection because all pipeline operators still need to get their other data sets from somewhere. We are consolidating everything they need in a very cost effective and efficient manner.

James Stafford: A late-2012 study on leak detection by the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has brought this subject to the forefront. Dr. David Shaw, one of the report’s authors, says that pipeline leaks, ruptures, and spill are “systematically causing more and more property damage…in bad years you have $5 billion in damages due to pipeline-related accidents”. The logic of the study is that pipleline operators could be spending 10 times more on leak detection given what kind of damages they are being awarded now.

Adrian Banica: Yes, the study makes the most valid point here, and that is that leak detection systems represent a bottom line savings, not an expense. For instance, Dr. Shaw has pointed out that pipeline companies would likely be justified in spending $10 million per year for every 400 miles of pipelines because they are already spending more than that on public property damage.

We have demonstrated that we can detect a leak that is less than 1 liter/min or 380 gallons/day. If our technology was deployed every 30 days and the leak were to happen in the middle of this period (on average), the total spill would be 5,700 gallons (380×15 days), which is 50 times smaller than the standard technology daily leak rate. That’s a huge difference.

Another difference is that pipeline operators pay around $12 per hour to have personnel walk the pipeline, and they can only catch leaks that are close enough for them to see.

James Stafford: Could leak detection systems also save lives?

Adrian Banica: Yes. The PHMSA study points out that 44% of these old hazardous liquid pipelines are in High Consequence Areas (HCAs)—which means that peoples’ lives are at risk if they blow up. We’re talking about 44% of over 170,000 miles of these pipelines. On a public platform, this alone should lend a new urgency to the leak detection debate. The point is that remote—or external—sensors can head off a dangerous leak faster than an internal system.

The challenge then is to convince pipeline operators to adopt external technologies that actually detect leaks rather than relying on the inconsistencies of visual detection, which sooner or later would see the pools of oil, but it might be a while.

James Stafford: Is the market ready for this technology?

Adrian Banica: The market is ready, but not necessarily because of leak detection—it’s the overall basket we discussed earlier.

There is a tremendous need in the industry for remote leak detection. But we had to account for budget constraints within our potential clients. We think we’ve developed a technology that’s very capable of providing the information our customers are looking for and doing so at a competitive price they are willing to pay.

We’ve been operating on the North American market for the last 2.5 years. It’s a very large market that has lately been in the eye of the media and the environmentalists. We’re talking about over 55 companies in Canada and almost 700 pipeline operators in the US, where some 100 companies operate or control roughly 80% of the pipeline infrastructure. It is also a regulated market, and regulators require operators to perform some level of leak detection surveys.

James Stafford: Will Keystone XL—or the San Bruno pipeline explosion—have any notable impact on the regulatory environment or the market for remote sensing technology?

Adrian Banica: Personally I don’t think that either of these will impact the leak detection practices in the industry. Rather, the driver will be the aging pipelines which will continue to have incidents and spills which the public will not accept.

James Stafford: And how is this playing out on the regulatory scene?

Adrian Banica: Congress passed a new law a year ago on this topic. The US regulators have yet to act on new regulations based on this law, but the trend is indeed there. Pipeline companies are concerned about potential upcoming new regulations and are working with the regulators to try and come up with proactive solutions and preempt their moves. There are a lot of discussions going on in the US on this topic right now and the regulator has proposed a set of new rules which are out for comment and discussion in the industry. It is a slow and drawn out process.

James Stafford: Everyone is waiting for the Obama administration to make a decision on Keystone, and while most analysts seem to think it will be given the final green light, the protest movement shows no sign of letting up. How do you see this playing out?

Adrian Banica: With the governor of Nebraska now approving it, I think the administration has no choice and no excuses for not approving it.

James Stafford: Would regulations governing pipeline safety actually boost support for Keystone XL?

Adrian Banica: Personally, I don’t think so. The most vocal opposition for Keystone comes from the side of the environmental movement that does not want to see the pipelines build in order to decrease our overall dependence on oil rather than their concern for spills. So it is a philosophical position based on decreasing CO2 emissions rather than one based on spills in the environment which will not be appeased by regulations.

James Stafford: What about any potential regulatory protection leak detection systems could offer pipeline companies?

Adrian Banica: The benefit to our customers is that they can demonstrate due diligence and that they have employed the best techniques available to ensure pipeline integrity. They will be covered if there is any court action or regulatory action. The value of our data in case something does happen could be quite substantial.

There may be small differences in the regulations with the US being somewhat stricter and tighter than the Canadian regulations. So there are a few more incentives for US based customers to use our service.

James Stafford: Protests continue over the Enbridge pipeline in Vancouver, for instance. How could this play out. Could big pipeline players like Enbridge be able to embrace something like your technology to quell some of those protests?

Adrian Banica: This is a good case in point. Yes they absolutely could, and should. I’m very firm on that answer and I think they are looking at it. Enbridge is a customer of ours already in the United States and they’re very aware of what we offer and do.

James Stafford: So these are early days for commercial viability?

Adrian Banica: These are very early days, and we have just turned the corner from a science concept into something that is commercially realizable. We spent 2011 and 2012 working very hard to penetrate the industry and to convince clients that this is not a science project anymore—this is a genuine commercially viable technology. We are now starting to see the adoption of our technology and services. So I believe we are at the tipping point and by no means do I think that shareholders have missed the boat.

James Stafford: Adrian, thank you for your time. This has been a very interesting discussion and the topic is one we will be following closely over the coming months. Hopefully we will get a chance to talk later in the year to see if any of the developments discussed have come to pass.

Adrian Banica: Absolutely, I’d be delighted to catch up later in the year.